The discussion of bullying highlights the problem of witnesses not intervening to help a victim. Researchers Latané and Darley (1968) described a phenomenon called the bystander effect.

the bystander effect

The bystander effect is a phenomenon in which a witness or bystander does not volunteer to help a victim or person in distress.

Social psychologists began trying to understand bystander intervention following the unfortunate murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 (Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder, & Penner, 2006; Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005). A knife-wielding assailant attacked Kitty repeatedly as she was returning to her apartment early one morning. At least 38 people may have been aware of the attack, but no one came to save her. Social psychologists hold that we make these decisions based on the social situation, not our own personality variables. Why do you think the bystanders didn’t help Genovese? What are the benefits of helping her? What are the risks? It is very likely you listed more costs than benefits of helping. In this situation, bystanders likely feared for their own lives—if they went to her aid the attacker might harm them. However, how difficult would it have been to make a phone call to the police from the safety of their apartments? Why do you think no one helped in any way?

New Understanding of The Kitty Genovese Case

Two weeks after the murder of Kitty Genovese, The New York Times published an article erroneously claiming that 38 witnesses saw or heard the attack, and that none of them called the police or came to her aid. The incident prompted inquiries into what became known as the bystander effect and the murder has become a staple in U.S. psychology textbooks. However, researchers have since uncovered major inaccuracies in The New York Times article.

Police interviews revealed that some witnesses had attempted to call the police. In 2007, an article in The American Psychologist found “no evidence for the presence of 38 witnesses, or that witnesses observed the murder, or that witnesses remained inactive.”^[1] In 2016, the Times called its own reporting “flawed”, stating that the original story “grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived.”^[2]

Despite the inaccuracies of this specific case, the bystander effect phenomenon remains pertinent and can be seen in many instances since that time, such as the 2009 Richmond High School multiple perpetrator rape, the 2010 case of Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax, or examples found during the 2021 rash of assault of Asian- Americans. In all of these examples, multiple parties witnessed the assault of another person without stepping into help and, in some cases, even stopping to film the incident without further intervention.

Helping is More Common Than We Think

Unfortunately, though failures to come to the aid of someone in need are not rare, recent studies reveal that a majority of the time, people do intervene. In 2019, cultural anthropologist Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard led a large international study, analyzing 219 street disputes and confrontations that were recorded by security cameras in three cities in different countries — Lancaster, England; Amsterdam, Netherlands; and Cape Town, South Africa. Contrary to bystander theory, Lindegaard’s team found that bystanders intervened in almost every case, and the chance of intervention went up with the number of bystanders, which she called “a highly radical discovery and a completely different outcome than theory predicts.”

This study is the first large-scale test of the bystander effect in real-life. Up until now, this effect was mainly studied in the lab by asking study subjects how they would respond in a particular situation. Another striking aspect of this study is that the observations come from three different countries including South Africa where, with high rates of violent crime, intervening in a street dispute is not without risk. ‘That appears to indicate that this is a universal phenomenon’, says Lindegaard.^[3]

Despite this, we know that help does not always come for those who may need it the most. Trying to understand why people do not always help became the focus of bystander intervention research (e.g., Latané & Darley, 1970).

Deciding Not to Help

To answer the question regarding when people help, researchers have focused on: how bystanders come to define emergencies, when they decide to take responsibility for helping, and how the costs and benefits of intervening affect their decisions of whether to help.

Defining the Situation: The Role of Pluralistic Ignorance

The decision to help is not a simple yes/no proposition. In fact, a series of questions must be addressed before help is given—even in emergencies in which time may be of the essence. Sometimes help comes quickly; an onlooker recently jumped from a Philadelphia subway platform to help a stranger who had fallen on the track. Help was clearly needed and was quickly given. But some situations are ambiguous, and potential helpers may have to decide whether a situation is one in which help, in fact, needs to be given.

To define ambiguous situations (including many emergencies), potential helpers may look to the action of others to decide what should be done. But those others are looking around too, also trying to figure out what to do. Everyone is looking, but no one is acting!

pluralistic ignorance

Relying on others to define the situation and then erroneously concluding that no intervention is necessary when help is actually needed is called pluralistic ignorance (Latané & Darley, 1970). When people use the inactions of others to define their own course of action, the resulting pluralistic ignorance leads to less help being given.

Do I Have to Be the One to Help?: Diffusion of Responsibility

Simply being with others may facilitate or inhibit whether we get involved in other ways as well. In situations in which help is needed, the presence or absence of others may affect whether a bystander will assume personal responsibility to give the assistance. If the bystander is alone, the personal responsibility to help falls solely on the shoulders of that person. But what if others are present? Although it might seem that having more potential helpers around would increase the chances of the victim getting help, the opposite is often the case. Knowing that someone else could help seems to relieve bystanders of personal responsibility, so bystanders do not intervene. This phenomenon is known as diffusion of responsibility (Darley & Latané, 1968).

diffusion of responsibility

The tendency for bystanders to shirk responsibility for intervening when other witnesses are around who could also intervene.

On the other hand, consider the race officials following the 2013 Boston Marathon after two bombs exploded as runners crossed the finish line. Despite the presence of many spectators, the yellow-jacketed race officials immediately rushed to give aid and comfort to the victims of the blast. Each one no doubt felt a personal responsibility to help by virtue of their official capacity in the event; fulfilling the obligations of their roles overrode the influence of the diffusion of responsibility effect.

There is an extensive body of research showing the negative impact of pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility on helping (Fisher et al., 2011), in both emergencies and everyday needs situations. These studies show the tremendous importance potential helpers place on the social situation in which unfortunate events occur, especially when it is not clear what should be done and who should do it. Other people provide important social information about how we should act and what our personal obligations might be. But does knowing a person needs help and accepting responsibility to provide that help mean the person will get assistance? Not necessarily.

The Costs and Rewards of Helping

The nature of the help needed plays a crucial role in determining what happens next. Specifically, potential helpers engage in a cost–benefit analysis before getting involved (Dovidio et al., 2006). If the needed help is of relatively low cost in terms of time, money, resources, or risk, then help is more likely to be given. Lending a classmate a pencil is easy; confronting the knife-wielding assailant who attacked Kitty Genovese is an entirely different matter. As the unfortunate case of Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax demonstrates, intervening may cost the life of the helper.

The potential rewards of helping someone will also enter into the equation, perhaps offsetting the cost of helping. Thanks from the recipient of help may be a sufficient reward. If helpful acts are recognized by others, helpers may receive social rewards of praise or monetary rewards. Even avoiding feelings of guilt if one does not help may be considered a benefit. Potential helpers consider how much helping will cost and compare those costs to the rewards that might be realized; it is the economics of helping. If the costs outweigh the rewards, helping is less likely. If rewards are greater than cost, helping is more likely.

The next time you see someone needing help, observe your surroundings. Look to see if the bystander effect is in action and take measures to make sure the person gets help. If you aren’t able to help, notify an adult or authority figure that can.

What do you think is the primary motive for helping behavior: egoism or altruism? Are there any professions in which people are being “pure” altruists, or are some egoistic motivations always playing a role?

---